`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 24
`Entered: May 10, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BLOOMBERG INC.; BLOOMBERG L.P.; BLOOMBERG FINANCE L.P.;
`THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION;
`CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.;
`E*TRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC;
`E*TRADE CLEARING LLC; OPTIONSXPRESS HOLDINGS INC.;
`OPTIONSXPRESS, INC.; TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP.;
`TD AMERITRADE, INC.; TD AMERITRADE IP COMPANY, INC.; and
`THINKORSWIM GROUP INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MARKETS-ALERT PTY LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and JONI Y. CHANG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Bloomberg’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael B. Levin
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00005
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners Bloomberg Inc. et al. (“Bloomberg”) filed a motion for pro hac
`
`vice admission of Mr. Michael B. Levin. (Paper 23.) The motion is unopposed.
`
`For the reasons provided below, Bloomberg’s motion is granted.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board may recognize counsel pro hac
`
`vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause, subject to the condition
`
`that lead counsel be a registered practitioner. In its Order authorizing motions for
`
`pro hac vice admission, the Board requires a statement of facts showing there is
`
`good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or
`
`declaration of the individual seeking to appear in this proceeding. (Paper 12.)
`
`In this proceeding, lead counsel for Bloomberg, Michael T. Rosato, is a
`
`registered practitioner. Bloomberg’s motion indicates that there is good cause for
`
`the Board to recognize Mr. Levin pro hac vice during this proceeding, and is
`
`supported by the declaration of Mr. Levin.
`
`In particular, Mr. Levin declares that he has been practicing law since 1994,
`
`and has extensive experience litigating patent disputes. (Ex. 1034, ¶ 8.) Mr. Levin
`
`also declares that he has established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in
`
`the instant proceeding, as he has been representing Bloomberg in related District
`
`Court litigation which involves the same patent being challenged in this
`
`proceeding. (Id.) Additionally, Mr. Levin’s declaration complies with the
`
`requirements set forth in the Board’s order authorizing motions for pro hac vice
`
`admission. (Ex. 1034, ¶¶ 1-11.)
`
`Based on the record before us, we determine that Mr. Levin has sufficient
`
`legal and technical qualifications to represent Bloomberg in the instant proceeding.
`
`We further recognize that there is a need for Bloomberg to have its counsel in the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00005
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`
`co-pending litigation involved in this proceeding. Accordingly, Bloomberg has
`
`established that there is good cause for Mr. Levin’s admission.
`
`The Office has published a Final Rule adopting new Rules of Professional
`
`Conduct. See Changes to Representation of Others Before the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office; Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 20180 (Apr. 3, 2013). The
`
`Final Rule also removes Part 10 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations. The
`
`changes set forth in the Final Rule including the USPTO Rules of Professional
`
`Conduct took effect on May 3, 2013. Id. at 20180-81. Therefore, Mr. Levin is
`
`subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Bloomberg’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Michael
`
`B. Levin is granted; Mr. Levin is authorized to represent Bloomberg as back-up
`
`counsel in the instant proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Bloomberg is to continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the instant proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Levin is to comply with the Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in
`
`Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Levin is to be subject to the Office’s
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO Rules of
`
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00005
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`Brian D. Range
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Email: mrosato@wsgr.com
`Email: brange@wsgr.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Andrew Choung
`GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS HOWARD
`AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
`Email: achoung@glaserweil.com
`
`
`William Fitzpatrick
`F.ROBBE INTERNATIONAL
`Email: bill@frobbeintl.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`